State Level Redistricting Essay Example

Michigan, have used gerrymandering to eliminate opponents from a majority of legislative seats.

Although some states like California, New Jersey and New York have utilized gerrymandering to safeguard and keep all incumbent members of the house, it still lessens the number of competing districts. Gerrymandering has been used to provide protection and retention for both incumbents in the house without having any bias towards opposing parties. Veith v Jubelir brought attention to gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and how it obstructed the rights of officials who were already elected in selecting their constituents. There were very few competitive districts in small states that were capable of influencing the majority in the house, thus preventing the minority from gaining power to influence party control.

According to Tolbert, Caroline, Smith, Daniel Green, and John (2006), the redistricting process in Texas in 2003 is an illustration of how the ruling parties in the state government were given the authority to create legislative boundaries to safeguard the re-election of the current officeholder in the upcoming election.Computers and their role in redistricting have played a significant part in determining the majority party in the house. From a survey conducted in different states, it has been discovered that technology has adversely affected redistricting. The use of computers has enabled the creation of tailored plans for redistricting to help achieve partisan objectives and thwart electoral competition, ultimately hindering voters' ability to voice their choices through the ballot box to choose their representatives in the legislature. Analysis of redistricting data from 1991 and 2001 shows that computers have been employed to develop precise redistricting strategies that favor incumbent partisans and eliminate competition in elections.

However, technological advancements can also be used to accurately and efficiently draw electoral districts by mapping and collecting clear demographic data. Legislative redistricting occurs when the legislature is constitutionally mandated to redraw the boundaries of various congressional and judicial districts every ten years.

Kousser (2003) suggests that redrawing boundaries every decade is necessary due to significant population changes within electoral districts. The legislature must ensure that the new districts contain an equal number of people, while also considering important factors such as minority voter rights, community interest, and political subdivisions. The legislature drafts the proposal, which then undergoes the standard legislative process before the governor signs it into law (Gul, 2007). In 2001 and 2002, the Wisconsin legislature had the constitutional duty of drawing legislative and constitutional districts to ensure equal population distribution. Legislative redistricting aims to meet federal and state laws' standards and ensure equal population distribution (Carson and Crespin, 2008).

During the Wisconsin legislature's floor period, discussion is expected to take place regarding the legislative and congressional redistricting processes. It has been determined by the United States Supreme Court in numerous cases that electoral districts must be able to represent and safeguard minority voter rights. Additionally, districts must reflect citizen interests and adhere to rational guidelines. However, judicial redistricting remains unresolved in the US. The Department of Justice enforces voting rights for minorities and requires compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for all jurisdictions and states' redistricting plans. The Supreme Court rules that no redistricting plan can limit minority voter power in any way.

According to Desposato, Scott, Petrocik, and John (2003), the task of meeting the requirement for fair redistricting

has faced difficulties due to few minority voters and non-influential districts in various states. The judiciary has addressed gerrymandering concerns; the US Supreme Court has prohibited redistricting that discriminates against minority political parties or legislators. However, the court hasn't clearly distinguished acceptable from unacceptable practices of gerrymandering. Despite this uncertainty, the court acknowledges equal representation as the primary goal in creating electoral districts for all voters in the United States.

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has addressed multiple voting rights cases and determined that redistricting based on race violates the constitution. The court specifically disapproves of districts with a high concentration of voters from one racial group. Moreover, the Supreme Court has highlighted instances where legislation relating to redistricting lacks clarity. This ambiguity can lead to regulations infringing on constitutional provisions since districts have the potential to send unsuitable messages to constituents.

A redistricting commission is responsible for redrawing electoral district boundaries, with the main goal of ensuring a transparent process. The commission educates and encourages public participation to achieve this aim. Scholars and citizens argue that an independent and transparent body should conduct redistricting instead of legislative redistricting, which has been partially biased for some time. Kilgannonc (2003) confirms that California has established guidelines for fairness and transparency in the redistricting process through a commission, with plans to create more competitive legislative and congressional districts.

It has been suggested that the establishment and involvement of an independent redistricting commission is crucial, regardless of its specific format. To ensure fair representation, the commission should consist of an odd number of members who are encouraged to contribute equally. For instance, if a member from one political

party proposes a redistribution plan, it must not be passed without the proposal being reviewed by other members from opposing parties. Additionally, any decision made by two dominant political parties must not receive approval until it is also agreed upon by affiliate members. Ultimately, any plans for redistricting must receive approval from the commission's majority members.

The independent commission must depict fairness and justice in the redistricting process by taking into account gender, race, ethnic groups, and state diversity. The report proposing the establishment of redistricting commissions sets out standards for forming legislative and congressional districts. The districts must have equal populations, which is interpreted under the protection clause on equality in the Fourth Amendment to mean that each district will have an equal number of people. Furthermore, Voting Rights Act guarantees people with minority voting rights equal protection.

The commission has an obligation to guarantee that the interests of the inhabitants are taken into account when designing the boundaries. The boundaries must be distinctive in terms of county boundaries, towns or cities, and must establish similarities in cultural, economic and ethnic interests. To ensure compliance with federal and state laws, districts should be contiguous and compact. Finally, the report emphasizes the need to create boundaries that will encourage the development of competitive districts.

According to Californian guidelines, the independent commission must gather public information by interviewing individuals from various states regarding a proposed draft. These individuals must be allowed to attend regular commission meetings where they can offer their ideas on the proposed plan. The commission must provide 72 hours' notice for such meetings. Additionally, commission members must operate independently, free of influence from the legislature.

Gul

(2007) states that redistricting benefits both partisan members and incumbents in the legislature. The majority can manipulate district boundaries to affect future voting outcomes and reappointments, resulting in minority groups being forced to vote for the majority delegation. This leads to further consolidation of power by the majority but may also lead to disfranchisement of minority groups. Scholars have observed bias towards the majority during most post-redistricting reappointments, which often favor dominant partisan members and protect incumbents involved in redrawing district boundaries.

According to Don (2004), partisan legislatures often block the drawing of boundaries in specific districts to maintain incumbents and gain an advantage over opposing districts. In redistricting, some states protect both partisan and opposing incumbents, while others only safeguard the incumbent from the same party. Gilligan, Thomas, Matsusaka, and John (2006) state that legislatures manipulate the redistricting process to concentrate opponents of their party in a few districts while creating district maps that favor their majority party. The purpose of redistricting for partisans is to decrease competition among districts and increase support for their party in the house at the cost of minority voting rights and opposition parties.

Redistricting can have a negative impact on minority voters by decreasing the electoral seats for opposing party representatives. The politicization of the process may occur when two separate legislative houses or when the governor and legislature belong to different parties. Unfair redistribution may result from special interests of various political factions. If individuals disagree with redistricting decisions, they can appeal to federal and state courts, which involve the Department of Justice established under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act - particularly important in states with a

history of redistricting due to racial barriers.

Redistricting carries both political and non-political consequences, with potential negative effects including the unfair displacement of an incumbent representative from their original district. This scenario can be particularly difficult for minority and opposition parties, as noted by Hood, McKee, and Seth (2008), who suggest that re-election campaigns may require incumbents to relocate in order to maintain their seat. Additionally, redistricting could result in internal competition within a party if two incumbents find themselves vying for the same district.

While redistricting can offer an opportunity for competition, it may also result in the exclusion of specific lawmakers. The responsibility of creating district lines usually falls on those who hold power within the legislative body, granting them the ability to impede challengers or members of opposing parties. To comprehend the significance of race-conscious districts, a study involved gathering insight from members of the public through interviews.

Don (2004) states that most individuals hold the belief that race is a key motivator for redistricting endeavors. There are those who contend that redistricting serves to polarize society and have a detrimental impact. Debates around this issue have been fueled by media coverage, with conservatives asserting that minority groups suffer negative consequences due to redistricting. Nonetheless, research has demonstrated that redistricting is an essential measure taken every decade in order to guarantee equal representation within districts.

According to Bridgman (2003), population imbalances can occur in various areas over a decade, resulting in gains and losses. To ensure fairness and equal representation, redrawing of district borders is necessary. This safeguards the voting rights of minorities and ensures that their interests are represented in the legislature. Additionally, the

redrawing of districts has a significant impact on determining election outcomes.

Research conducted by Gilligan, Thomas, Matsusaka, and John (2006) has established that redistricting certain districts can sway the makeup of the legislature and the delegation of specific legislative tasks. Many individuals believed that redrawing districts would result in new states, federal government, and legislative representatives. Nonetheless, redistricting has been expedited unfairly by biased partisans who seek to attain their own objectives. This conduct disenfranchises opposition parties and individuals with minority voting rights from participating in equitable elections.

To prevent partisan bias, especially in the drawing of district boundaries, independent commissions have been formed. Scholars suggest transferring this power from legislature to these commissions to avoid corruption and influence. These commissions adhere to specific criteria that encourage public participation in redistricting for a fair and transparent outcome. Overall, redistricting plays a crucial role in achieving equal population distribution among electoral districts every decade.

The main goal of redistricting is to safeguard the voting rights of minorities and ensure that the concerns of communities are taken into account. Nevertheless, practical experience has shown that partisan control over boundary drawing results in redistricting that benefits incumbent and majority legislators while harming opposing parties. This can lead to a decrease in minority voting power, leading to dissatisfaction. To address this trend, it is crucial to establish independent commissions with the mandate to conduct redistricting.

It is suggested that independent commissions focused on redistricting be supported by both federal and state governments to ensure a just and transparent process in the future. The legislature, which has demonstrated unfairness and prejudice over time, currently holds power over redistricting. To guarantee compliance

with state and federal laws while achieving the original purpose of redistricting, it is necessary to relocate responsibility for this activity to an impartial commission that will afford equal participation opportunities for all members of the public.